Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!dw240d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleLegitimateSitesJobsFromHomeJobs/get/hourly… ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw240luuuuu

The Possible Las Vegas Motive That Only Mark Steyn Is Talking AboutLondon think tank member tries to come up with a motive, lands on “gun control.”
Steyn’s reader notes Paddock “spent days filling his hotel room with more weapons and ammunition than he could ever conceivably use along with an array of advanced modifications and accessories.” Which begs the question: Why did he spend energy and time sneaking all those firearms into the hotel knowing that when bullets started flying, he wouldn’t get the chance to use even half of what he had on hand?
[…]
If Paddock’s goal was to shock the U.S. into banning guns, or passing strict gun control, as the think tank member suggests, it means the bombshell answer explaining what drove a man to murder so many innocents is never coming. If it’s true, it means that Paddock planted the seed of an idea — that gun control is necessary — that is already tearing through the United States like a cancer. It’s an interesting theory, but I hope that it’s wrong. Stephen Paddock has devastated too many lives already. The idea of his murderous actions posthumously influencing our world more than they already have is hard to stomach.http://www.dailywire.com/news/22026/possible-las-vegas-motive-only-mark-steyn-talking-tyler-dahnke

Nancy Pelosi is a national treasureBy TorcerA gun grabber throws away the mask and admits to the obvious and illustrates why we cannot give in to their demands that we disarm.“Two steps forward, one step back”

For years now the gun grabbers have used a tried and true method of denigrating our Civil Rights the instant a ‘serious crisis’ takes place. This is best described as the Gun Grabber Two Step. It begins with the “easy access to guns” lie whenever there is a ‘serious crisis’. It continues with whatever they can muster in taking away our rights and finishes up with them resetting the rhetoric for the next time around.

For example, in her news conference Oct. 5 Nancy Pelosi talked about the ‘background check’ as though it’s new and has yet to be implemented while in point of fact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has been around for almost 20 years. Of course, they now want to impose an ‘Enhanced’ Background Check or [Intergalactic Background Checks for want of a better name] which will assert government control over everyone’s private property.

And Bless her heart (as they say in the Southern regions of the country), Nancy gave up the game when she said at the same news conference that “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.”
The problem for the gun grabbers is that they must studiously maintain the fiction that their ultimate goal is not their ultimate goal. No, they don’t really want to confiscate everyone’s firearms, they merely want to tie them up in so much government control that any slip-ups mean they take them anyway.

Why A Bump-Fire Stock Ban Won’t End Bump-Firing
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed a ban on bump-fire stocks or anything that would allow someone to fire “too fast.” The NRA has even come out and said bump-fire stocks should probably be regulated. The gun community is evenly divided on just whether these stocks should be legal or not.

However, even if something is done to ban bump-fire stocks, it won’t stop the problem. It won’t prevent another maniac from using bump-fire to kill numerous people if he’s so inclined.

You see, while the bump-fire stock is useful for bump-firing, eliminating those won’t eliminate bump-fire.

“But doesn’t Sen. Feinstein’s bill ban other devices that assist in things like that?” some might ask, and they’re right. Unfortunately, the ban is useless and here are two videos to illustrate just why it’s useless.

Is Vladimir Putin’s regime in trouble? Probably not
With all the protests taking place in the streets of the United States, Venezuela and Catalonia it’s easy to miss some of the others which don’t get quite as much air time. In the streets of Moscow and other cities across Russia, protest fever is catching on once again and dissatisfied citizens decided to celebrate Vladimir Putin’s birthday by sending a message: It’s time for you to retire. (Associated Press)https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/08/vladimir-putins-regime-trouble-probably-not/

The Possible Las Vegas Motive That Only Mark Steyn Is Talking AboutLondon think tank member tries to come up with a motive, lands on “gun control.”
On Friday, Las Vegas undersheriff Kevin C. McMahill told the media that the motive underlying Stephen Paddock’s monstrous rampage remains a mystery. It’s truly bizarre that almost a week after the shooting we have no insight into what set Paddock off. Generally speaking, mass murderers kill in order to send a message, or because they’re seriously mentally ill.
[..]
Mark Steyn pointed out that, in many ways, Paddock’s actions more closely resembled those of a professional hitman than those of his mass-shooting predecessors. The careful planning suggests Paddock had some form of motive.
[..]
Perhaps, but alternatively, author Mark Steyn shared a theory on Friday sent to him by a reader whom he describes as a “gentleman at a London think tank.” The reader’s theory, which is worth reading in its entirety, even if just as a thought experiment, arrives at a motive that seems to check nearly every box.
[..]
Steyn’s reader notes Paddock “spent days filling his hotel room with more weapons and ammunition than he could ever conceivably use along with an array of advanced modifications and accessories.” Which begs the question: Why did he spend energy and time sneaking all those firearms into the hotel knowing that when bullets started flying, he wouldn’t get the chance to use even half of what he had on hand?
[…]
If Paddock’s goal was to shock the U.S. into banning guns, or passing strict gun control, as the think tank member suggests, it means the bombshell answer explaining what drove a man to murder so many innocents is never coming. If it’s true, it means that Paddock planted the seed of an idea — that gun control is necessary — that is already tearing through the United States like a cancer. It’s an interesting theory, but I hope that it’s wrong. Stephen Paddock has devastated too many lives already. The idea of his murderous actions posthumously influencing our world more than they already have is hard to stomach.http://www.dailywire.com/news/22026/possible-las-vegas-motive-only-mark-steyn-talking-tyler-dahnke

Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/13/2017) Why are you obsessing over a non-existent issue?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/19/2017) Why are you trying to Control what other people are discussing?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/20/2017) And once again KirklesWorth displays it’s prowess for projection in complaining about such tactics while engaging in the practice!
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) So are you going go through your usual method of attacking Conservatives with long screeds over past events?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) So once again it has FAILED to proves it’s point. Note that it merely wants to imply something without actually PROVING anything. And once again it failed making an intellectual argument as was the original point. The question still remains as to who has the time to the time to write these long screeds.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Before you demand that I address your post – you need to respond to this: Note that it originated the tactic of initiating attacks on old threads. KirklesWorth You are obviously oblivious to the use of your own tactics Okay, everyone… today’s word is irony in that it originated the tactic of initiating attacks on old threads.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Are you serious? You initialed countless attacks – are you denying this Fact?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Why don’t you put more effort in addressing my question than Avoiding it: Perhaps for once we can try to elicit an honest and open opinion from KirklesWorth on this turn of events.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Are you serious? You initialed countless attacks – are you denying this Fact?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Again, it is based on information you do NOT have. Therefore it is false. Clearly you cannot address that issue.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Ohh.. scare quotes, again you are implying something based on information you do not have – therefore it is False
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) What are your referring to? Do you understand that that is a subjective standard. That there is a vast difference between fact and opinion? TRY AGAIN
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) I can appreciate your position here – you have to avoid saying too much or engaging in debate, so you assail everyone with endless postings of what they have said in the past as cover for that lack of debate. You have to accuse others of what you do in spades in order to muddy the waters and confuse everyone as to who you truly are.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Remember that long screed when you DEMAND that someone prove you use them to avoid addressing the issue at present.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) How do you have so much time to wast endlessly posting those long screeds?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) And now instead of debating the issue it trots outs ‘Rules for Radicals’ and desperately tries to accuse other of what is does. Clearly we are dealing with someone without any moral grounding..
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) I can appreciate your position here – you have to avoid saying too much or engaging in debate, so you assail everyone with endless postings of what they have said in the past as cover for that lack of debate. You have to accuse others of what you do in spades in order to muddy the waters and confuse everyone as to who you truly are.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) And you very aptly proving to everyone that you cannot debate the issues and have to project those tactics on others. Odd that you are well familiar with them
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) What is this supposed to be? Some sort mass attack of BS [Bernie Sanders] to continually AVOID debate? How can you waste so much time in your pointless endeavours?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) What is this supposed to be? Some sort mass attack of BS [Bernie Sanders] to continually AVOID debate? How can you waste so much time in your pointless endeavours?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) What is this supposed to be? Some sort mass attack of BS [Bernie Sanders] to continually AVOID debate? How can you waste so much time in your pointless endeavours?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) What is this supposed to be? Some sort mass attack of BS [Bernie Sanders] to continually AVOID debate? How can you waste so much time in your pointless endeavours?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) What is this supposed to be? Some sort mass attack of BS [Bernie Sanders] to continually AVOID debate? How can you waste so much time in your pointless endeavours?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) And now we’re down to the the originator of attacks against Conservatives wasting time hurling a blizzard of postings. Everyone should note that it is wasting more time trying to AVOID debate on the issue than it would were it to do so…… …Which only deepens the mystery of why the originator of attacks against Conservatives is here…
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (09/28/2017) Have you ever considered the fact that your repeated failure to explain the inherent contradictions has rendered your assertions as false? Or is it a case where you are just barely holding on and thus feel the need to lash out at those that highlight those contradictions?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Note that aside from it’s attempt at currying your favor and lying once again, it didn’t actually have anything substantive to add to the conversation.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Here KirklesWorth was shown to be a LIAR making a declarative statement based on information IT Does not have:
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Why don’t you go off and do something useful instead of harassing Conservatives?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Again, you made a blanket declarative statement based on information you do not have. Therefore it is false and you are a liar.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Again, you made a blanket declarative statement based on information you do not have. Therefore it is false and you are a liar.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) It should be patently obvious that your actions are harassment.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Why don’t you go off and do something useful instead of harassing Conservatives?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Again, you made a blanket declarative statement based on information you do not have. Therefore it is false and you are a liar.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Again, you made a blanket declarative statement based on information you do not have. Therefore it is false and you are a liar.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/06/2017) Again, you made a blanket declarative statement based on information you do not have. Therefore it is false and you are a liar.
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/08/2017) Isn’t that curious that It’s playing it’s link & Number game instead of padding it’s response… what is it trying to hide?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/09/2017) Isn’t that curious that It’s playing it’s link & Number game instead of padding it’s response… what is it trying to hide?
Torcer►KirklesWorth: (10/09/2017) Again, you made a blanket declarative statement based on information you do not have. Therefore it is false and you are a liar.http://moonbattery.com/?p=88460#comment-3561090380

HAHAHAHAHA!!! I can’t believe you actually believed that “I am obligated to account for every second in your life that you didn’t have a candidate”!HAHAHAHAHA!!! I let it pass the first time but you are so shameless that you continued on anyway! And after that meticulous list I made of your escapades to boot! But let’s recap…I said:

KirklesWorth
HAHAHAHAHA!!! I can’t believe you actually believed that “I am obligated to account for every second in your life that you didn’t have a candidate”! HAHAHAHAHA!!! I let it pass the first time but you are so shameless that you continued on anyway! And after that meticulous list I made of your escapades to boot! But let’s recap…I said:

KirklesWorth►Torcer: (10/09/2017) But anyway…I am hardly obligated to account for every second in your life that you didn’t have a candidate…so get over yourself

And you seriously replied:

Torcer: (10/10/2017) Actually, YOU ARE since you made that claim. If you cannot, you will have been shown to be a Liar.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Un-freaking-believable! Then I posted all of your histrionics and you still say I’M THE ONE that has to account for what I’ve said? HAHAHAHAHA!!!

How about this: you tell us who your candidate was and how they were going to defeat Hillary. If you cannot, you will have been shown to be a Liar…because you’ve already admitted:

1. Torcer►TED: (06/24/2016) I have no idea what I may do in November – I will vote down ballot but whether or not I can do that for Trump IF he’s on the ticket is another story.
2. Torcer►Bodhisattva: (08/11/2016) At this point I don’t have the foggiest idea on who I will vote… I suspect it’s going to what is going on when I step into the voting booth.
3. Torcer►KirklesWorth: (08/11/2016) Did you miss the part where I said I hadn’t decided yet?
4. Torcer►Noovuss: (08/20/2016) Perhaps – at this point in time I cannot indicate what I will do come election day.
5. Torcer►Bodhisattva: (09/20/2016) The problem is not just voting – and I cannot indicate what I will do when the day comes around because even now I don’t know – but it’s also a question of Volunteering and donations.http://moonbattery.com/?p=88460#comment-3561182279

Does it understand that the mere claim of something such as that does not make it true?
As I’ve asked it repeatedly: Where did I state that?
Again, it made a blanket declarative statement based on information it does not have.

KirklesWorth 1. Torcer►TED: (06/24/2016) I have no idea what I may do in November – I will vote down ballot but whether or not I can do that for Trump IF he’s on the ticket is another story.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth2. Torcer►Bodhisattva: (08/11/2016) At this point I don’t have the foggiest idea on who I will vote… I suspect it’s going to what is going on when I step into the voting booth.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth 3. Torcer►KirklesWorth: (08/11/2016) Did you miss the part where I said I hadn’t decided yet?

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth 4. Torcer►Noovuss: (08/20/2016) Perhaps – at this point in time I cannot indicate what I will do come election day.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth 5. Torcer►Bodhisattva: (09/20/2016) The problem is not just voting – and I cannot indicate what I will do when the day comes around because even now I don’t know – but it’s also a question of Volunteering and donations.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

Does it understand that the mere claim of something such as that does not make it true?
As I’ve asked it repeatedly: Where did I state that?
Again, it made a blanket declarative statement based on information it does not have.

KirklesWorth 1. Torcer►TED: (06/24/2016) I have no idea what I may do in November – I will vote down ballot but whether or not I can do that for Trump IF he’s on the ticket is another story.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth2. Torcer►Bodhisattva: (08/11/2016) At this point I don’t have the foggiest idea on who I will vote… I suspect it’s going to what is going on when I step into the voting booth.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth 3. Torcer►KirklesWorth: (08/11/2016) Did you miss the part where I said I hadn’t decided yet?

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth 4. Torcer►Noovuss: (08/20/2016) Perhaps – at this point in time I cannot indicate what I will do come election day.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide

KirklesWorth 5. Torcer►Bodhisattva: (09/20/2016) The problem is not just voting – and I cannot indicate what I will do when the day comes around because even now I don’t know – but it’s also a question of Volunteering and donations.

Definition of decide1.1[no object] Make a choice from a number of alternatives.
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘bring to a settlement’): from French décider, from Latin decidere ‘determine’, from de- ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut’.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decide